"A nation can survive its fools and and even the ambitious but it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable...
The traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself...
He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.” (Cicero)

Thursday, 2 October 2014

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression - Really?

I like the first paragraph.

The second is a cynical construct to say the least.

'The exercise of these freedoms... may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties.' The bad guys definitely have a get-out-of-jail-free card here. Seeing as it's them who determine which 'conditions, restrictions or penalties' needed to be imposed on 'the right to freedom of expression.'
And when did Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories ever give a damn about us? When did they last make any kind of an effort to implement the above on behalf of the British people?

The powers-that-be have, for more than 50 years put the foreigner first and those who complained a long way last in this country. Thus, our 'national security' and 'territorial integrity' have been put at risk via the Pakistani paedophile, the immigrant gangs now operative in all of Britain's cities and big towns, the London bombings, the 2011 riots, the imported drug scene, imported diseases, Sharia Law, hate preachers, FGM, polygamy, taxi rape, ethnic cleansing, white flight, a foreigner-first council housing policy that stretches back more than 50 years, the advent of ISIS, the jihadi mentality and much more 'disorder or crime' that has wildly affected the 'health,' 'morals' and 'safety' of all of us.

When the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, stood at the dispatch box in 1998 to explain to the Commons why even more laws were needed to bash the Brit in his own homeland, he commented thus upon the contribution to the cause of one of his Jewish kinfolk:

"It would be appropriate to place on record not only my thanks, but the thanks of a huge number of people, for the work of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who over the years has made probably a greater, more singular, contribution to the development of race relations legislation than anyone else in this country.

It was he who… was the architect of the Race Relations Act 1965, the Race Relations Act 1968 and the Race Relations Act 1976. I have no hesitation in saying that I have listened very carefully to the advice that he has offered."

Lord Lester has been active on many anti-indigenous fronts over the years.

In a lecture given on 23 October 2003, he explained his involvement in the massive immigrant putsch of the African Asian, in the 60s and 70s, thus:

"Thirty three years ago I was co-counsel for the applicants before the European Commission of Human Rights in what is known as the East African Asians’ case. The case led to a dramatic improvement in the position of the 200,000 British Asian nationals who were being made refugees by the racist policies of the rulers in East Africa…

It was a test case involving a challenge to the compatibility of section 1 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 with the European Convention on Human Rights…

It was the enactment of that law in 1968 that prompted me to call, later that year, for the enactment of a British Bill of Rights to protect the constitutional rights of the individual and of minorities against what John Stuart Mill described as ‘the tyranny of the majority’.

In the introduction to a book on Race and Law, written in collaboration with Geoffrey Bindman and published thirty years ago, I asked optimistically whether the East African Asians Case, then pending before the European Human Rights Commission, might ‘eventually prompt our legislators to bring the whole of the law into harmony not only with the spirit of the Race Relations Act but also with the growing body of International Conventions and Covenants on human rights’.

It was the plight of the British Asians… that continued to inspire me during my thirty year campaign for what became the Human Rights Act 1998…
Much remains to be achieved. The Government has shilly-shallied for the past six years about whether they will ratify the additional Protocols to the European Convention, and the right to complain to the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee Against Racial Discrimination…

And they have threatened to introduce legislation to cut down legal protection for the human rights of asylum-seekers… What was done to British citizens of Asian descent in 1968 is not a remote chapter of history. In times of populist hysteria, racism and xenophobia, it could happen again".

Lester was also responsible for converting Derry Irvine, Tony Blair's mentor and his first Lord Chancellor, to the merits of the European Convention on Human Rights. This set of pernicious laws enabled Europe to over-ride common sense decisions made by British courts regarding, for example, the deportation of foreign criminals to their own country of origin. This because their 'human rights' might be violated if such deportations were carried out. Derry Irvine, himself, easily persuaded Tony Blair to introduce the Human Rights law into the 1997 New Labour Manifesto.

According to Jack Straw, Lord Anthony Lester 'made probably a greater, more singular, contribution to the development of race relations legislation than anyone else.' He was also involved, at the highest level, in the enforced colonisation of Britain by hundreds of thousands of unwanted Kenyan and Ugandan immigrants and the the primacy of European Human Rights law within the British legal system can be traced directly to him. He also co-founded the Brit-loathing construct, The Runnymede Trust.

Bit of a quadruple whammy there, I'd say. Not exactly what I would call a bloke who has the best interests of the indigenous people of these islands at heart.

On 15 June 2005, Lester said this in the House of Lords:

"It is well established in human rights law that POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION is entirely compatible with the human rights agenda."

'Positive discrimination,' eh? Better make that whammy a quintuple.

Some day soon a different kind of British government will be imposing harsh 'penalties' on those who, with such wilful savagery, ignored or drove a coach and horses through so many of the protections explicitly proposed in paragraph two of the Human Rights Act.

The phrase 'human rights' has become anathematic to most in this country. As can be seen from the above, the HR pendulum only ever swings one way. It protects LibLabCon's immigrant footsoldiers, it it doesn't protect us.